2nd Amendment: Keep and Bear Arms
The 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment does not protect you against the government from taking away your guns. Your rights are given to you by God, and protecting your rights is your responsibility. Like anything else you own, if you give away your rights, or allow someone to take them, they may still belong to you as an unalienable, God-given right, but you have given up all access to them, and can no longer exercise those rights.

In the Washington, D.C. v. Heller case in 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the right to bear arms is an individual right, as opposed to a collective right which would only allow the bearing of arms for the purpose of participating in government approved groups, such as law enforcement agencies.

During the early years of the United States under the United States Constitution, the Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a central government because they feared the federal government would become tyrannical, and take away people’s rights. Therefore, even though the Constitution in the first seven articles did not grant to the federal government any authority over gun rights, along with the rest of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, those skeptical over the creation of a central government wanted an amendment that clarified the federal government had no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

The States have Original Authority, meaning that all powers belonged to the States prior to the writing of the Constitution. The first seven articles of the document did not give to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, therefore, any legislative power over gun rights is a State power. The 2nd Amendment simply confirms that. The argument then becomes about the potential tyranny of the States. If the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States, what keeps the States from infringing on gun rights?
The State constitutions, and the people, hold the responsibility of restraining the States from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers were not concerned with a tyranny of the States because the State governments are closer to the people, and therefore the people have fewer legal and political obstacles when acting to ensure the State governments do not infringe on individual rights.

Complacency, then, becomes our greatest enemy.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Understanding that the Framers expected their posterity to be informed problem-solvers, while recognizing that basic human nature would invite complacency and the rise of a tyrannical government, it becomes clear why the Founding Fathers put so much importance on gun rights.

In early American society the need to be armed was necessary for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, protecting one’s property, facilitating a natural right of self-defense, participating in law enforcement, enabling people to participate in an organized militia system, deterring a tyrannical government, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and hunting.

The right to keep and bear arms is not merely about protecting your home, or hunting, though those are important, too. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which could include a potentially oppressive central government.

Noah Webster in his “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” in 1787 articulated the necessity for keeping and bearing arms clearly: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

Some will argue the 2nd Amendment does not apply to our current society because the militia is a thing of the past.

The National Guard now serves as the organized militia envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but an unorganized militia also exists.

Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both “organized” and “unorganized” civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces, Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia:

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are –

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia. While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist. The Founding Fathers would have likely included in the definition of unorganized militia, “All able-bodied citizens capable of fighting.”

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) challenged the City of Chicago’s ban on hand guns, bringing to the surface the debate over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government.

The 5-4 Decision of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case by the U.S. Supreme Court holds the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in all cities and States. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that originally the 2nd Amendment applied only to the federal government, but it is in the opinion of the court that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, therefore applying those amendments, and more specifically the 2nd Amendment, to the States.

The decision by the Supreme Court, in this case, makes all State laws on fire arms null and void. Applying the 2nd Amendment to the States means the 2nd Amendment is supreme over any and all State laws on firearms, and according to the 2nd Amendment, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If “shall not be infringed” applies to both the federal government and the States governments, then all persons are allowed to possess a firearm. The words, “shall not be infringed” carries no exceptions.

The reason the 2nd Amendment is absolute in its language is because it was intended to only apply to the federal government. The federal government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in any way, but the States retain the authority to regulate guns as necessary based on the needs and allowances of the local electorate.

The U.S. Constitution applies to the federal government except where specifically noted otherwise.

In reference to McDonald v. Chicago, I am uneasy anytime the federal government tells a city or state what they have to do, even if on the surface it is for a good cause.

If we give the federal government the right to tell cities they have to allow gun ownership, what stops them from doing the opposite later? This case created a precedent of allowing the federal government to dictate to the States and cities what they have to do, and that kind of federal intrusion constitutes great danger to State Sovereignty.

Breaking down the language used in the 2nd Amendment assists in clarifying what the original intent was.

The 2nd Amendment begins, “A well regulated Militia.” The immediate understanding of that phrase by the average American in today’s culture recognizes it as meaning, “A militia under the control of the government,” or “regulated by government agencies,” or “managed by federal law.”

All of the above definitions are wrong.

As discussed regarding the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, the word “regulated” does not mean “controlled or restricted by government.” The definition used by the Framers, and the one that fits best with the context of the period, and the principles of the Constitution, can be found in the 1828 Webster Dictionary. Webster defined regulated as: “To put in good order.” Some historians state that the word “regulate” in the 18th Century meant “To make regular.” The word “restrict” was not used in the 1828 definition until the third and final definition of “regulated,” revealing that today’s most common definition was the “least used” definition during the time of the writing of the United States Constitution.

Since “regulate” did not mean “to control and restrict,” but instead meant “to put in good order,” that means a well regulated militia is one that is in good order.

The need to have a militia in good order makes sense when one considers that during the Revolutionary War the militia was not in good order. The muskets were all different sizes, often the clothing of some members of the militia was tattered, and many didn’t even have shoes.

To put the militia in good order, Congress was required to create standards for the militia to follow. The authority to Congress regarding this power is revealed in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, where the Constitution says, “The Congress shall have Power. . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

The next part of the 2nd Amendment reveals that a well regulated militia is “necessary to the security of a free State.”

The word State, in that instance, means “individual, autonomous, sovereign State.” In other words, a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free Massachusetts, a free Pennsylvania, a free Virginia, a free New York, a free Ohio, a free California, and so on.

“Necessary to the security of a free State.” A militia is necessary, not just recommended, to the security of a free State. Security against whom? A foreign invader? Isn’t that what the standing army was supposed to be for? Why would States need militias, capable of being called up by the governor of the State, for their “security,” and to ensure that security is for them to remain a “free State?”

Foreign enemies were a concern, but not as much of a concern as a tyrannical central government. Thomas Jefferson so distrusted a central government that he suggested there would be a bloody revolution every twenty years.

“… can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independant 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” — Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

The Declaration of Independence also states that the people have the right to stand up against their government should it become tyrannical. In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence it reads:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government walks hand in hand with the right to keep and bear arms. How could it ever be logical that the right to keep and bear arms could ever be influenced or restricted by the very government that that right exists to protect the people against in the first place?

Terms:
Arms – Weapons, firearms; a gun that may be used for protection of property or as part of a militia.

Collective Right – Rights held by a group, rather than its members separately.

Declaration of Independence – The unanimous formal Declaration of the thirteen united States of America declaring their freedom from Great Britain, dated July 4, 1776.

Individual Right – Rights held by individuals within a particular group.

Organized Militia – A well trained militia that is in good order that operates under the authority of Congress, able to be called into actual service by the executive authority of a State, or by the Congress of the United States; National Guard, Naval Militia, State Militias.

Original Authority – Principal agent holding legal authority; initial power to make or enforce laws; the root authority in government.

Regulated – To make regular; to put in good order.

State Sovereignty – The individual autonomy of the several states; strong local government was considered the key to freedom; a limited government is the essence of liberty.

Unorganized Militia – Able-bodied citizens of the United States, or those who have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States, who are members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Questions for Discussion:

1. In your opinion, what are the most important reasons for the right to bear arms?

2. If the courts, or the federal government, were to redefine gun rights as being a collective right, how would that affect our individual right to keep and bear arms?

3. Is a militia necessary in today’s society? Why?

4. Why did the Founding Fathers see it as necessary to prohibit the federal government from any authority to prohibit the right to keep and bear arms, but felt it necessary to allow the States full authority over gun regulations?

5. In McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to cities and States. How does that open up the opportunity for the federal government to further regulate firearms?
Resources:

The more that some public officials overstep their authority, the more that voters — and others — are stepping up and saying, “Stop!”

The 2014 congressional elections represented a collective shout by voters to politicians and bureaucrats to back off. Way off.

Consider the case of Arnold Abbott, a 90-year old involved in feeding the needy at the Sanctuary Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. This “scofflaw” is a serial free food dispenser to the poor who come to his church for meals.

Abbott was arrested by the Ft. Lauderdale police for his supposed threat to the peace of society. During the arrest, an officer shouted to Arnold, “Drop that plate right now!”

You read that right. Arnold was not told to “Drop that gun right now,” but rather “to drop that plate!” Onlookers were outraged and shouted: “Shame on you!” to the officers.

Arnold has beaten the city before in court, and expects to see them in court soon on their new law making his charitable activities a criminal offense.

Ideally, the Broward County Sheriff would inform the Ft. Lauderdale police that they would be arrested if they attempted to arrest Mr. Arnold. So far, that has not happened.

In other counties, however, sheriffs have interposed themselves between their people and the threat of rogue power from wayward officials.

America’s history illustrates this on a grand scale. Our War for Independence quickly grew from militia encounters to armed resistance directed and financed (however fecklessly) by the Continental Congress.

In the last century, veterans returning from World War II found that their city of Athens, Tennessee was controlled by a very corrupt machine. When the August, 1946 Democrat primary election (the only election in town) was literally stolen (the police walked off with the ballot boxes), the armed people of McMinn County rose up and rousted the corrupt regime. Clean elections then gave a victory to the reform slate.

The Second Amendment was intended to protect the people’s personal arms so they would be able to resist tyranny should an American government ever go off the rails of the Constitution and rule tyrannically. The Battle of Athens was an applied case of what the Second Amendment is intended to make possible.

In Elkhart County, Indiana, the people have elected a Constitutional Sheriff who has had occasion to interpose himself between the Food and Drug Administration and a county dairy farmer. The FDA was threatening to confiscate the farmer’s dairy equipment because they don’t like raw milk — even though they can point to no problems. Elkhart Sheriff Brad Rogers threatened to arrest any FDA agents making further visits to the farmer’s property. End of the FDA threat.

The voters of Elkhart County indicated their strong support for Sheriff Rogers’ interposition. He was just reelected with 75 percent of the vote.

Rogers’ warning to the FDA has kept the peace in Elkhart County. Let us hope the time will come soon when Broward County will have a sheriff who understands his role as a keeper of the peace against the Ft. Lauderdale food police.

Larry Pratt is the Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, a grassroots gun lobby with a million members and activists.SOURCE

Agenda drives the left, in all things. The more dead kids there are, the more fodder for the leftest agenda. Alinsky would be proud. The more that we learn about the mass killers the more we find out how they are drugged, and supporters of leftest ideologies. I for one am going to start referring to the entire lot of them as murderers. Because that is what they are.

When others talk of full blown revolution I will no longer speak about temperance. I’m not, after all, that kind of a Christian. More power to the people of America as envisioned by those that established this great nation!

A bunch of kid killers support the Free Fire Zones. Let us be diligent in reminding them about that at every turn!

And just as in Washington D.C. — the control freaks are at work right here in Wyoming.

Remember during the last session when state “educators” stormed the capitol in Cheyenne — demanding that our pro-gun legislation was killed in committee?

Well now they are scheming at the “local” level to rob you and me of our God-given rights.

The Platte County School Board and its “Republican Majority” are using “truancy” as a way to strip away constitutionally protected rights.

In Wheatland, WY this 9 year old boy was placed on probation for missing 19 days of school — even though his mother had approved the absent days (sick days and family emergencies) with the school.

Under the probation orders — minor children may not “own” any firearms — and must agree to random urine analysis.

But the state statute reveals this is a misdemeanor and the parents could receive 10 days in jail and/or a $25 fine.

But as if using the same playbook of the Obama administration — the “local control” freaks made truancy their latest crisis, so they could now violate citizen’s rights.

All involved have Ignored current law — since one must first be convicted of a “felony” in order to strip rights to possess firearms.

Of course this is how the anti-gun crowd rolls — all the players are in unison with every step maneuvering to crush civil liberties.

To drive their point (control) home, the bad actors will even railroad unsuspecting young children through a system that begins with an overzealous prosecutor, and ends with a heavy handed judge.

But let’s not forget, it all started with the Platte county school board’s policy…”Turn them over to the authorities” they say.

The “elected school board” should be ashamed of themselves — so far not one single school board member has lifted a finger to stop this egregious trampling of parental rights.

If fact, there are a dozen other families lined up to face the same judicial force.

Like in this photo, a young Wheatland couple challenged with the day to day struggles of caring for their severely handicapped little girl — could now follow the same path and loss of rights.

It seems that in the eyes of the Platte County School Board nothing else matters, not even breathing tubes and stays in critical care that this family has recently endured.

Just as maddening are the “Lawyers” that claim we must remain silent because these children are now “in the judicial system”.

This is the same way the “control-program” rolls in many others states — by treating rights including the Second Amendment with outright contempt.

But we will not be silenced…

Last week I personally attended the school board meeting and witnessed their “appointed-bureaucrat-superintendent” running the show — so now the elected board members need to hear from you!
Did I mention that the Superintendent of Platte County Schools was appointed in 2012. And…that he applied in Wheatland after his former employer, a Minnesota School, failed to renew his contract that same year.

Please contact Platte County Schools today at (307)322-3175 and demand the school board ends this assault on God-given rights.

Don’t forget that the Senate will probably renew efforts to expand background checks and criminalize private transfers soon.Should you go to jail for swapping guns with a regular shooting buddy?
Call your senators every day, or at least once a week, and let them know that you don’t want any new gun control laws.

No New Gun Laws! No Bans. No “Universal Background Checks.” No Dangerous New “Anti-Trafficking” laws. No Compromise!

Please forward this E-Update to every freedom-loving American you know.

If you’re not a Supporting Member of The Firearms Coalition, we invite you to step up now to help us fight for your rights. Formed by Neal Knox in 1984, The Firearms Coalition has been fighting for your rights for almost 30 years, but we can only be effective if we have your help. Please visit our web site at FirearmsCoalition.org and make whatever contribution you can afford. Visit us on Facebook, and share our columns and information with your friends and family. Together we can protect our rights and save our republic.

Following the hysteria generated by gun prohibitionists in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, a nationwide rush on gun stores began as citizens bought semiautomatic modern sporting rifles, handguns and ammunition, in effect “making a political statement” about proposals to ban such firearms.

The so-called “assault rifle” has become a symbol of freedom and the right of the people to speak out for the entire Bill of Rights. Banning such firearms, which are in common use today, can no longer be viewed exclusively as an infringement on the Second Amendment, but must also be considered an attack on the First Amendment.

Many people now feel that owning a so-called “assault rifle” without fear of government confiscation defines what it means to be an American citizen. Their backlash against knee-jerk extremism is a natural reaction to overreaching government.

What should one expect in response to this heightened rhetoric and legislative hysteria? Citizens in other countries react differently to government intrusion into their lives, but Americans are uniquely independent. Among firearms owners, talk of gun bans and attempts to limit one’s ability to defend himself or herself against multiple attackers by limiting the number of rounds they can have in a pistol or rifle magazine turns gun owners into political activists.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) did not intend her gun ban proposal to cause skyrocketing sales of semiautomatic rifles and pistols, but that’s what happened. She must live with the consequences of her shameless political exploitation of the Sandy Hook tragedy.

President Barack Obama never envisioned the rush to purchase rifle and pistol magazines, but telling American citizens they shouldn’t have something is like sending a signal they need to acquire those things immediately.

Vice President Joe Biden never imagined his efforts would result in a tidal wave of new members and contributions to gun rights organizations, making the firearms community stronger and more united in opposition to any assault on the Second Amendment.

Freedom of association is also protected by the First Amendment.

Perhaps they should take a day off and visit the monuments at Lexington and Concord, and reflect on what prompted those colonists to stand their ground. It was the first time in American history that the government moved to seize arms and ammunition from its citizens, and it went rather badly for the British.

Beneath the surface many Americans are convinced that we may be approaching a point when the true purpose of the Second Amendment is realized. Underscoring this is a new Pew Research Center poll that, for the first time, shows a majority (53 percent) of Americans believe the government is a threat to their rights and freedoms.

Exacerbating the situation is a perceived indifference from the administration toward the rights of firearms owners who have committed no crime, but are being penalized for the acts of a few crazy people.

It is time to lower the rhetoric and allow cooler heads to prevail. The demonization of millions of loyal, law-abiding Americans and the firearms they legally own must cease. If we are to have a rational dialogue about firearms and violent crime, we must recognize that the very people who could be most affected have a First Amendment right to be heard.

Recall the words of Abraham Lincoln, who cautioned us more than 150 years ago that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” A half-century before him, Benjamin Franklin taught us that “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Their spirits are calling to us now.

Alan Gottlieb is founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation.

Today, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) pulled out all the stops in holding a press conference to introduce her long-anticipated ban on modern rifles and magazines, including universal registration of all gun sales. And today, you have been fed lies by the same politicians who have been trying to confiscate guns since at least the early 1990’s.

At the conference, Democrats, including Sens. Feinstein, Richard Durban (D-IL), Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) , recycled virtually every cynical distortion used by gun ban advocates in their effort to divide and defeat not only Second Amendment supporters, but all freedom-loving Americans.

Lies you are being told

“We don’t want your guns”

Durbin and Schumer appealed to hunters and sportsman, saying: “We don’t want to take your guns.” But their histories and the history of the gun control movement say otherwise. These cynical manipulators of tragedy hope you don’t remember 1994, when passage of the Brady Act, and then the ban on semi-automatic firearms, was immediately followed by “Brady II,” a draconian gun ban which would have given the BATF power to search the homes of law-abiding Americans and would have banned most common self-defense handguns and magazines.

In the present proposal, the “one feature” test for semi-automatic firearms could ban even a .22 caliber rifle if it has a “thumbhole” stock. More importantly, the arbitrary magazine capacity limit will apply to defensive handguns, limiting your ability to protect yourself and your family.

The legislative history of Sens. Feinstein, Schumer and Durbin is that they will take what they can get, and they will not stop in going for the rest. If they pass this ban, more will follow and they will go after your hunting rifle or shotgun. These people have been consistent and clear, they want to prohibit law abiding citizens from owning any type firearm.

“No right is absolute”

Schumer said these are “reasonable limitations” to your Second Amendment rights because, after all, “no right is absolute.” He argued that our First Amendment right to freedom of speech doesn’t allow you to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Apparently, however, this Harvard-educated lawyer is unfamiliar with the concept of “prior restraint.” Prosecuting someone for wrongly yelling “fire” represents prosecution of those who abuse their rights. By contrast, gun control is a restraint on the rights of the law-abiding. If the gun control model were applied to freedom of speech, you would be bound and gagged before entering the theater on the premise that you might yell “fire.”

As much as those who would restrict your freedoms want you to believe “the NRA” and the “gun manufacturers” are the only ones opposing restrictive gun control, understand that the National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban represents a grass roots movement of millions of law-abiding gun owners, the vast majority of whom don’t earn a dime from this effort, and take time from jobs and families to fight for your civil rights. Ironically, it is the “anti-gun lobby” which actually comprises a small number of well-funded gun ban activists and their paid lobbyists.

“You don’t need an AR-15 to go hunting”

Regurgitated by several anti-gun politicians at the press conference, it was most completely expressed by Philadelphia Police Chief Charles Ramsey, who pointed to an AR-15 and said, “You can’t go hunting with something like that…there would be nothing left to eat.”

But the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. In drafting the Bill of Rights, the Framers intended it as the last in a series of checks and balances against abuse of government – perhaps, indeed, the sort of abuse President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Feinstein and others are determined to thrust on the American people.

“These ‘assault rifles’ are weapons of war”

The guns being targeted by this ban are not “assault rifles,” which are military machine guns virtually unavailable to the public since 1934. Yet Schumer and others repeatedly called the guns “assault rifles” in order to confuse you about the guns they want to ban which, in reality, differ from common hunting guns only by cosmetic features.

“If the magazine ban had been in effect, kids would be alive in Newtown today”

So claimed Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy (both D-CT), in a complete absence of any evidence to that effect. Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho was reported to carry one hundred magazines, and most active shooters carry multiple firearms, making magazine capacity moot. Moreover, contrary to claims by gun ban advocates, the rate of violent victimization in schools during the period from 1994 to 2004, when the last semi-auto ban was in effect, increased by five-fold.

Coalition members reject these lies

The thirty-seven (37) participating organizations of the National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban, representing millions of Second Amendment supporters, reject the lies being told to the American people in order to pass the Feinstein ban.

Some will urge you to “compromise.” The Coalition, however, regards “compromise,” as our opposition defines it, to be a process in which we lose slightly fewer of our rights than under the original proposal. Consequently, any legislation which registers or bans firearms; limits magazine capacity; registers private transactions through NICS; or restricts time, place or manner of self-defense is unacceptable.

Members of Congress who support gun owners by opposing all gun control will, in turn, benefit from support by Coalition organizations. Members of Congress who support gun control by any means, procedural or substantive, will be targeted for defeat by Coalition members. They will be subject to picketing, leaflet drops at events in their districts, phone and mail campaigns, and political action committee opposition. NRA ratings and endorsements will have no impact on Coalition actions.

Do not believe lies promulgated by politicians who exploit tragedy to further their pre-ordained agenda to follow the disarmament path of Britain and Australia. Unlike other countries, the Framers designed our Republic to keep Americans free, and freedom means keeping arms in the hands of the people.

These “scary-looking” guns are the very type referenced in the Second Amendment

By Jeff Knox

There’s been a lot of talk recently about “Assault Weapons,” but it seems that many of the people doing the talking don’t know anything at all about guns, and that’s causing confusion.

As an Army-certified Small Arms Repairman and a lifelong firearms owner and enthusiast, I know a little bit about guns and assault rifles, so I’d like to set the record straight about a few things.

First off, the term “Assault Weapon” is a made-up name. There really is no such thing. The term was coined by some firearm marketers back in the 1970s to describe military-looking, semi-auto firearms. Anti-gun extremists recognized it as a catchy and scary term and exploited it for all it was worth. The term was a play on the valid label “Assault Rifle,” which is a lightweight, selective fire rifle or carbine. The key there is that term “selective fire,” which means the operator can select either single shot or multi-shot modes of fire. In other words, a true assault rifle can fire one shot for each trigger pull, or it can fire a burst or string of shots for each trigger pull – machinegun mode.

What Feinstein, Obama, and Holder are calling “assault weapons” are not selective fire. They are not machineguns, and are not capable of selective fire. Nor are they easily modified to be able to fire like machineguns. These guns are semi-auto firearms that fire one round each time the trigger is pulled, just like a typical revolver or semi-auto pistol, or the 100-year old Winchester Model 1907.

This Update was sent from The Firearms Coalition to our friends and supporters.

Please forward to others concerned about retaining their rights.

*** Please make sure we have your ZIP Code so we can better alert you to important issues in your state! ***

*** Just Reply to this message with your ZIP in the Subject line. Thanks for your help. ***

Your elected servants need to hear from You!

Please contact your elected representatives now – by phone, email, letters, and faxes – and contact them every few days until they get the message.

STOP ALL Infringements on our rights – No gun bans. No magazine bans. No government interference in private firearms transactions.

Tell them that Violent Crime – including “gun crime” – has gone down by more than 50% in the past twenty years – while gun ownership and guns in circulation have gone through the roof. Tell them to stop trying to control guns and instead do a better job of controlling criminals and the criminally insane.

If you agree with the work we’re doing and you’d like to help, there are three things we ask you to do:

Second, join your local grass roots rights organization and help them in protecting your rights.

Third, join The Firearms Coalition for news, updates, and to add your voice to our efforts. Contributions – of any amount – are appreciated.

You can contribute online with PayPal or a credit card at www.FirearmsCoalition.org, or you can drop us a check – or just a $5 bill at PO Box 1761, Buckeye, AZ 85326. If you see value in the work we do, please help us out. We’ll do our best to give you a good return on your investment. — Jeff

BELLEVUE, WA (January 25, 2013) – As the debate over new gun control laws continues to take top billing in state and national news, organizations representing gun owners and Second Amendment rights in five U.S. states have recently joined Firearms Policy Coalition, noted managing director Brandon Combs.

“In the midst of one proposed gun ban after another, the addition of these outstanding organizations to our Coalition means that those working hard to secure our Second Amendment rights are coming together to tell President Obama and our state legislatures that enough is enough,” remarked CCRKBA founder Alan Gottlieb. “The millions of law-abiding American gun owners have had it with being scapegoated for the crimes of the evil and insane.”

“There’s never been a more critical time for all of us fighting for the advancement of Second Amendment rights to work together,” observed Brent Carlton, president of Comm2A. “Our litigation efforts are critically important, but it’s equally important that gun owners be informed and take action every day to oppose those laws which infringe on their rights.” Continued Carlton, “FPC provides an opportunity for Massachusetts gun owners to have an impactful and far-reaching effect, both in terms of their own state’s laws as well as proud Americans who value their federal Constitutional rights.”

“This partnership brings Florida Carry to the forefront of the national public policy debate on private firearms ownership,” said Sean Caranna, Executive Director of Florida Carry, Inc. “As Florida’s largest and most active Second Amendment rights organization, we’re proud to be a part of this coalition and through it extend our grassroots efforts to combat gun control laws in Florida and everywhere.”

IllinoisCarry spokesperson Valinda Rowe added, “IllinoisCarry is pleased to join efforts with the Firearm Policy Coalition. Not only must we actively work toward beating back irrational gun control laws in our home state of Illinois but we must also work toward protecting and preserving our rights on a national level. This would be a daunting task if not for a nationwide coalition of Second Amendment groups like the FPC. We thank the FPC for creating this opportunity to work together, coast to coast across the nation. Together, we can stand up to those who would strip us of our Constitutional rights and insure the Second Amendment remains strong for many generations to come.”

“Over the past two decades, many states have used common sense and protected the civil liberties of their residents, such as through permit-less and accessible shall-issue firearm carry laws,” said Chris Baker, president of Hawaii Defense Foundation. “However, some states just can’t seem to grasp the plain meaning of the Constitution. To those states, we say this: we will fight hard together, we will fight smart together, and we will win together. That is exactly what we and the Firearms Policy Coalition will do.”

“While Texas residents may not face the same gun law challenges as those in Massachusetts, California, or Illinois, all Texans are Americans first and know that gun control laws anywhere are an affront to liberty everywhere,” commented Gary Burris, president of Lone Star Shooting Association. “We’re proud to join with FPC and work cooperatively to secure our fundamental rights so that law-abiding gun owners can exercise their rights across our great state and country, in Texas and in Toledo.”

“Firearms Policy Coalition has reached millions of Americans since launching in December and we’re looking forward to reaching millions more,” said FPC’s Combs. “The overwhelmingly positive reaction to our message of civil rights and the facts about gun control really drives home how much Americans value their freedom. These new FPC member organizations are key to ensuring that the Second Amendment means what it says.”

“While some power-hungry politicians want nothing more than to undermine the Second Amendment and important legal decisions like Heller and McDonald, we’re confident that the Constitution provides the best policy: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not – and must not – be infringed.”

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (ccrkba.org) is dedicated to protecting your firearms rights. Its role is to educate grass root activists, the public, legislators and the media. CCRKBA’s programs are designed to help all Americans understand the importance of the Second Amendment and its role in keeping Americans free.

Commonwealth Second Amendment (Comm2A.org) is a grassroots civil rights organization dedicated to promoting a better understanding of rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Our activities include educational programs designed to promote a better understanding of Massachusetts and Federal firearms laws and rights as well as programs to defend and protect the civil rights of Massachusetts gun owners.

Hawaii Defense Foundation (hawaiidefensefoundation.org) was chartered to protect and defend the Second Amendment of the United States and Hawaii Constitution, provide safety and education training on firearms, and help empower Americans with the knowledge and understanding of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. HDF advocates for all civil liberties, and is currently engaged in Federal litigation regarding the Second and First Amendments.

IllinoisCarry (illinoiscarry.com) reaches thousands of pro-Second Amendment citizens with email alerts and legislative actions. In addition to other efforts, IllinoisCarry helps find legal counsel for those whose Second Amendment rights have been violated. Illinois Gun Owner Lobby Day (IGOLD), which is co-sponsored by IllinoisCarry, drew over 8,000 Illinois gun owners from across the state to Springfield to march in our yearly parade and engage their elected officials in 2012.

Florida Carry, Inc. (floridacarry.org) is a non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots organization dedicated to advancing the fundamental civil right of all Floridians to keep and bear arms for self-defense as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 8 of the Florida Constitution. Florida Carry works tirelessly toward repealing and striking down ill-conceived gun control laws that have been proven to provide safe havens to criminals and be deadly to law abiding citizens.

Lone Star Shooting Association (lssa.us) was founded by a group of American and European shooters to build a tool for public and political awareness used to spread legal, responsible possession of firearms and the right to use firearms in a practical manner suitable for self defense. LSSA funds projects for the preservation of gun rights around the world.

It all became academic when the big government authoritarians decided that the time was ripe to disarm those that they laird it over. Mob rule, also known as political correctness and democracy has raised it’s populist ugly head against our republic. The Bill of Rights means nothing any longer. Sure, the current debate is about the Second Amendment but that’s simply a cover. Just look at how the entire Bill of Rights has been whittled away over the years with the blessings of the Supreme Court.

The electorate in general no longer respects the oath taken to protect and defend the Constitution. Rather they by and large do their best to chip away freedom and liberty since the don’t have the courage to force a Constitutional Convention. Cut the lies and admit that what their doing is no less than the commission or treason. Legal definitions be damned! No more squirming around by better than thou attorney types call it what it is.

How many as a percentage brought about freedom from the British? I have read that it was as low as three percent up to twenty percent. The point being that it was not very many. There are a lot more now, and those people are angry, very angry.

While many of the treasonous leaders of these not so United States are plotting the over through of the foundations that made this nation the envy of the world others are quietly forming actual militia’s with the full blown intention of destroying those that wish to destroy the enemies those that prefer freedom. Not simply the outlaws in the Senate and House of Representatives but organizations such as the Southern Positive Law Center as many groups that hate liberty.

An actual civil war or full full blown revolution is about to unfold. The neo- conservatives and neo-communists will the ones that will to be the ones that brought the blood baths. People are sick of talk and negotiation that just chips away the rights and liberty that belong of the people.